THE
WAR AGAINST THE SAUDISWhat's
behind Washington's split with Riyadh?

Washington
is all atwitter over what appears to be a sea-change on the foreign policy
front: evidence of a developing
rift between the US and Saudi Arabia, its most loyal Arab ally. Since
World War II, Washington and the House of Saud have enjoyed a lucrative and
seemingly permanent alliance, in which the former provided protection against
enemies at home and abroad, while the latter provided a steady stream of oil
profits for politically-favored American companies. The US went to war against
Iraq, in 1991, and stationed close to half a million US troops on the Arabian
peninsula, supposedly to protect Riyadh from a threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Now, it appears, the events of September 11 have produced a split in this
formerly rock-solid relationship, with talk
of an impending Saudi demand for a US withdrawal. The Washington Post
reports that

"Saudi
Arabia's rulers are increasingly uncomfortable with the U.S. military presence
in their country and may soon ask that it end …. Senior Saudi rulers believe
the United States has 'overstayed its welcome.'"

DEMOCRATS
TAKE THE LEAD

The
response to this has been fierce, and Congressional Democrats
have been particularly bellicose, with Senator Joseph Lieberman, a putative
presidential contender, going so far as to declare that a "theological
iron curtain" was falling over the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia.
Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan), powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, took up this "cold war" theme with some particularly hot rhetoric,
saying he had "an uneasy feeling" that the Saudis were coddling
Islamic terrorists and that American forces were "not particularly wanted"
there:

"They
act as though somehow or another they're doing us a favor. And I think the
war against terrorism has got to be fought by countries who really realize
that it's in everybody's interest to go after terrorism. I think we may be
able to find a place where we are much more welcome openly, a place which
has not seen significant resources flowing to support some really extreme,
fanatic views."

Levin
and Lieberman were joined by Rep. Ike Skelton, top Democrat on the House Armed
Services Committee, who averred that the Saudis "need to cleanse the
place of potential terrorist groups."

THE
APOSTATES

This
Saudi-devil theory, which posits that we ought to have bombed Riyadh in addition
to Kabul, is senseless if we compare it with the facts. For Bin Laden is an
avowed enemy of the House of Saud, and is pledged to their overthrow.
As Peter L. Bergen points out in Holy
War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World Of Osama bin Laden:

"Bin
Laden also believed the House of al-Saud, the family that has ruled Arabia
for generations, were 'apostates' from Islam. Apostasy is a grave charge to
level against the Saudi royal family, who style themselves the protectors
of the two holiest places in Islam, Mecca and Medina, and practice the most
traditional form of Sunni Islam."

In
addition Bergen relays the charge of Khaled
al-Fawwaz, an Al Qaeda sympathizer who helped arrange Bergen's interview
with Bin Laden, that "several assassination attempts have been mounted
against [Bin Laden] by Saudi intelligence services." Al Qaeda's holy
war against the US military presence on the Arabian peninsula makes a particular
target of those who invited the Americans in  the House of Saud.

THE
MARLARKEY FACTOR

Brisard
and Dasquie basically say that the Americans let 9/11 happen because of a
"softness" on the Saudis on account of the influence of Big Oil
in American politics. This is what supposedly motivated the Bushies to enter
into secret negotiations with Bin Laden prior to September 11. The popularity
of the Brisard-Dasquie book in France is understandable, as it blames the
Americans for the disaster that befell them, but the lesson really ought to
stand for the Europeans as well, says M. Dasquie:

"The
U.S. is not the only one. The question is why developed countries need to
do commercial deals with Saudi Arabia and if those commercial deals are why
they must close their eyes about the reality of the Saudi Arabian kingdom.
Since the 18th century, Saudi Arabia has been focused on conquering the world."

Such
an overweening ambition would be difficult to hide, but isn't it funny how
nobody ever noticed it before? And another thing: this "forbidden truth" theory
being a lot of marlarkey, what, then, is the real reason for the anti-Saudi
propaganda campaign, so ably and relentlessly conducted by a broad coalition
of neoconservatives (the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the New
York Post) and liberal Democrats (Lieberman, Levin, the New
Republic)?

TARGET:
BUSH I

The
interest of congressional Democrats in the "Forbidden Truth" thesis
is understandable, especially if they can make the charge of "secret
negotiations" stick. If the Bush administration was not only "soft"
on terrorism but even somehow protected their Saudi allies from scrutiny by
law enforcement agencies, then who benefits? The Bush family, long tied to
the Saudis, is fair game once the "Forbidden Truth" conspiracy theory
becomes the conventional wisdom: George Herbert Walker Bush, reviled by some
for his pro-"Arabist" policies, is the particular target of this
left-wing hate campaign.

OPPORTUNITY
KNOCKS

The
neocons, no friends of Bush pere, also have much to gain. They blame the father
for not "finishing the job" and concluding the Gulf war prematurely,
even as they exhort and try to shame the son into a military confrontation
not only with Iraq, but with nearly the entire Islamic world. Weekly Standard
editor Bill Kristol didn't waste much time after 9/11, quickly mobilizing
a phalanx of intellectuals and other policy wonks calling for an all-out
invasion of a whole list of Arab nations: not only Iraq, but also Iran and
Syria  and I'm sure none of the signers would object to the addition
of Saudi Arabia.

Okay,
so at least two groups of ideologues  and I can think of a few more
 on the right and the left have some interest in propagating the "Forbidden
Truth" scenario, but, by themselves, these people are just a bunch of
writers, policy wonks, and political hacks, without the resources to do anything
but bloviate. The real power  that is, the money power  behind
the anti-Saudi campaign are the same financial interests that have profited
from the Saudi-US alliance lo these many years: the Rockefeller family, the
controlling factor in the Arabian-American Oil Co., Aramco.
And therein lies a story….

THE
ROCKEFELLER CONNECTION

In
return for US aid and support for the House of Saud, King
Ibn Saud granted Aramco a monopoly over the production of Saudi oil at
the end of World War II. Aramco is a consortium of companies, with Exxon,
Mobil, and Socal  all Rockefeller-connected  granted 70 percent
ownership, and Texaco granted the rest. A premier example of crony capitalism,
the Rockefeller-Saudi alliance translated into multi-millions in subsidies
through the Export-Import Bank, so that the King could build his own personal
railroad from his capital to the summer palace. Franklin Roosevelt took money
out of the war budget to prepare the way for Rockefeller's pipelines. In return,
the Saudis granted the US an airbase at Dharan, conveniently near the oil
fields. Smalltime capitalists hire private security guards to protect their
property, but the big boys  or, at least, some of them  have the
use of the American military.

AN
ENDURING ALLIANCE

The
Saudi-Aramco relationship has endured a lot. There was a phony "nationalization"
of Aramco in the 1970s, when Nasserite and Baathist socialism were all the
rage on the Arab "street": the Saudi government took over Aramco,
formally, but then immediately turned around and granted the Aramco-Rockefeller
consortium the exclusive contract to "manage" the operation. Under
this new deal, the consortium would get the lion's share of Saudi oil, with
the rest going to Petromin, the state-owned company. As Murray
N. Rothbard succinctly summed it up:

"It
all boils down to a happy case of the 'partnership of industry and government'
 happy, that is, for the Saud family and for the Rockefeller oil interests."

TURNING
ON A DIME

This
was the rock upon which the US-Saudi alliance was founded, and anyone who
questioned the necessity, wisdom, or cost of this friendship  let alone
calling for a US withdrawal  was roundly denounced as a foolish "isolationist."
Now, the same people who hailed the Gulf war and the imperative of defending
the Saudi oil fields, have turned on a dime, and are not only calling the
historic friendship into question, but openly wondering if the Saudis are
enemies.

How
to explain this sudden about-face by the chattering classes, the political
mavens, and now a growing number of mostly Democratic politicians? I say 
follow the money!

Oh,
but "everything's changed!," they cry. How can you be so cynical?
Don't you know that skepticism is out and earnestness is in?
Be that as it may, I can only report the facts as I see them, and what I can
tell you is that everything changed well before September 11, 2001, as far
as the Rockefeller oil interests in Saudi Arabia were concerned.

TURNING
POINT

The
pivotal event occurred without much public notice, on September 23, 1998,
during Crown Prince Abdullah's visit to the US, where he met with the presidents
of the major US oil companies, "with whom he exchanged cordial talks
and reviewed issues pertaining to petroleum affairs," as the
Saudi embassy website delicately phrases it. But the reality lurking beneath
the veneer of diplomatic phrases was a lot rougher: according to widespread
reports in the Arab media, the Prince basically told the Aramco consortium
that their monopolistic state-privileged status was about to be revoked. A
very interesting piece by Adel
Darwish in the Middle East Analyst
purports to give us the inside scoop on the Prince's message to this gathering:

"During
a private, hour-long meeting on Saturday 23 September at the house of Saudi
Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan in McLean, Virginia, with senior executives
representing seven American oil companies: The four American oil giants Mobil
Corp, Exxon Corp, Texaco Inc. and Chevron Corp. (which established the Arabian
American Oil Co now known as Saudi Aramco, in the 1930s) the other three were
Atlantic Richfield Co., Conoco Inc. and Phillips Petroleum Co.

"According
to sources close to the meeting, [the] Prince [told] the executives to submit
directly to him a study of 'recommendations and suggestions' about the role
their companies could play in the exploration and development of both existing
and new oil gas fields, said one participant in the meeting. The same source
said that the executives appeared 'shocked' by the major policy reversal.
Saudi Arabia began nationalizing its oil industry in 1973 and has adamantly
excluded foreign oil companies from production operations ever since."

SHOCKWAVES

Adamantly
excluded but for the Aramco consortium, that is  until now. Abdullah,
the heir apparent to the invalid King
Fahd, is a modernizer who has decided that it's time to throw open the
doors of free competition and let the free market take over. The deal was
off. The Rockefeller stranglehold on Saudi oil production was about to end,
announced the Prince, and this surely sent waves of shock through his audience.
Indeed, the shockwaves are still being felt today, as the US ponders not only
withdrawing its troops from the Saudi kingdom, but whether our longtime ally
is really our deadly enemy.

"In
1998 I had a chance to meet with a number of executives from major oil companies.
We had discussed the investment opportunities in the Kingdom especially in
light of its stability and the availability of huge oil and gas reserves.
I had indicated to them, at that time, that we welcome, and we will be willing
to look into, any investment ideas that might be of benefit to both sides."

THE
SAUDIS AND THE 'SILK ROAD'

Abdullah's
vision of a modernized Saudi Arabia is to be financed by a new arrangement
with Western oil companies, and an opening up of the Saudi economy to competitive
foreign investment. He boasted of receiving proposals "from 18 of the
top oil companies in the world" worth a total exceeding one hundred billion
dollars and ranging from "production, processing, transporting and distributing
of gas to refining, transporting and marketing of oil and building the required
infrastructure." The Prince went on to politely but firmly declare his
defiance:

"All
this will take us a long way towards the creation of a solid and integrated
economy that realizes the full economic potentials of the oil and gas industry
and will open new and wide investment opportunities for the Saudi private
sector. And it is important to keep in mind that money invested in projects
in Saudi Arabia means less money available for investment in competing projects
elsewhere."

TWO
CAN PLAY

A
very interesting comment, that last: what are these "competing projects"?
This is none other than the Transcaucasian
"Silk Road" pipeline project, slated to extend from the Caspian
Sea oilfields to Turkey, and perhaps down through Afghanistan to the Indian
Ocean. This project has long been on the drawing boards, and the Clinton administration
took it up with alacrity, even going
so far as to set up a special department to facilitate its creation. If
the foreign oil companies were going to try to go around them, said the Prince
in so many words, then two could play that game:

Q: "Your Royal Highness what about Saudi Aramco? Will it assume a
new role following the formation of the council and the invitation of the
international oil companies?"

A: "We are proud of Aramco's achievements through the years and our
dealings with foreign companies will never be at the expense of Aramco. I
believe the presence of these companies will strengthen Aramco and sharpen
its competitive edge. Aramco, has, I believe, the administrative and technical
expertise and know-how that enable it to compete effectively with these companies."

FREE
MARKET ECONOMICS 101

With
the price of oil steadily falling, Abdullah is strapped for cash. Darwish
cites Yehya
Sadowski, associate professor of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies, who says the Saudis exhausted their
capital assets paying off the US for the cost of the Gulf War. Faced with
the looming prospect of bankruptcy, and increasing competition in the oil
market from South America and Central Asian states of the former Soviet Union,
Abdullah's choice was made out of necessity:
the alternative is continued stagnation and the indefinite postponement of
modernization.

In
any case, the glee with which the heir presumptive to the Saudi throne delivered
a lecture on free market economics to the leading capitalists of the West
should be shared and appreciated by free marketeers everywhere.

A
LESSON LEARNED

In
spite of the Prince's reassurances that the Rockefellers would get their fair
share  and no more  it is doubtful that the assembled Aramco executives
were all that appreciative of the little lesson in Economics 101. Their great
unhappiness is what is really driving this anti-Saudi hysteria. Oh, you've
got to modernize, say the globalist policy wonks, you've just got
to open your borders to free trade and open up your markets to free competition:
let the market rule! This is the advice routinely given, but, when it is finally
taken, the reaction is a concerted campaign of calumny and vilification.

ACCIDENTALLY
ON PURPOSE

After
years of close military cooperation between the two countries, a female pilot
pops up who objects to settled rules on proper attire while serving in the
Saudi kingdom  and becomes
a feminist icon overnight. All of a sudden, we hear from Andrew Sullivan
about the persecution of homosexuals under the strictures of Sharia law, a
cause that somehow previously escaped his attention. Virtually overnight it
is discovered by all sorts of instant "experts" that Wahabism, the
official state religion of our longstanding ally, is the equivalent of Nazism
if not outright devil-worship. That this sudden awakening to the alleged "Saudi
threat" occurred in tandem with the Rockefeller's acrimonious (and costly)
break with the House of Saud is, of course, the purest coincidence.

A
GREAT DANGER

The
dissolution of the Rockefeller oil monopoly, and the creation of a truly independent
Saudi Arabia, with freer markets and without the burden of justifying the
presence of foreign troops on its soil, will strengthen the forces of modernization
and expand the margins of freedom in the Middle East. That is why the withdrawal
of US forces would be a giant step forward in defeating the Bin Ladens of
this world. It is a divorce that will benefit both: however, all divorces
contain some bitterness, no matter how outwardly amicable, and it is going
to be all too easy for the War Party to segue straight into an adversarial
relationship with our former ally. And therein lies a great danger.

THIRSTY
FOR BLOOD

With
Max Boot of the War Street Journalcomplaining
about the paucity of American casualties in Afghanistan, clearly our bloodthirsty
hawks were disappointed in the brevity of the Afghan campaign, and yearn for
more. The
same arguments made by the warhawks of National Review for an invasion
of Iraq could be applied with even more force to an alleged "threat"
from Riyadh. As our foreign policy tends inexorably toward an all-out assault
on the entire Arab world, the Saudis will take the place of the Soviets in
the demonology of the new cold war  at least that is the hope in certain
quarters.

THE
VENTRILOQUISTS

When
Crown Prince Abdullah called off his sweetheart deal with Aramco, he incurred
the wrath of some very powerful people, and it was only natural that they
would seek revenge. Speaking through Jeff
Jacoby  in an act of ventriloquism that no doubt had the dummy-columnist's
full cooperation  the Aramco-Rockefeller consortium delivered this "ultimatum"
to their former business partners:

"We
would make it clear to the Saudi princes that we expect their full cooperation
no matter where the war on terrorism takes us. And if it takes us to a land
war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia will make its military bases available for staging
the invasion.

"Will
the Saudis refuse? Will they protest that complying with our demands will
mean the toppling of their regime? Either way, our course will be clear: We
will seize and secure the oil fields."

How
convenient.

"But
our purpose would not be plunder."

Oh,
of course not!

"We
would appoint a respected, pro-Western Muslim ally to run the oil industry
in trust for the Muslim world."

I
imagine Aramco has a few suggestions.

"No
longer would the petro-wealth of Arabia be used to advance Islamist fanaticism
and terror  or to maintain a decadent royal family in corrupt opulence.
It would be used, rather, to promote education, health, and democracy throughout
the Middle East."

 and to fill the coffers of the Rockefellers and their corporate allies,
who won't allow the prize of oil-rich Araby to escape their grasp quite so
readily.

"The
Gulf's great riches, now a well spring of disorder and unrest, could be transformed
into a force for decency, stability, and peace."

The
Gulf's great riches, in other words, will stay right where they are: securely
deposited in Armaco's bank account. So the revenge of the Rockefellers plays
itself out on the world stage: they'll retain their monopoly on the largest
known oil reserves  one way or the other.

BUSH
PAYS THE PRICE

So
far, President Bush has made it plain that he does not mean to wage war on
Islam, and for that he is being made to pay a price. While his State Department
is struggling to undo the damage done
by the anti-Saudi media and the Lieberman-Levine assault in Congress, a grand
coalition of left and right is pushing for World War III in the Middle East
 a war that, given the presence of Pakistan and India (not to mention
Israel) in the equation, could quickly go nuclear.

Please Support Antiwar.com

A contribution
of $25 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into the Bosnian Quagmire:
The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans, a 60-page booklet packed
with the kind of intellectual ammunition you need to fight the lies being put
out by this administration and its allies in Congress. And now, for a limited
time, donors of $50 or more receive a copy of Ronald Radosh's classic study
of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative
Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to